Legal Opinion · Dissent
City of Kentwood v. Sommerdyke Estate
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided July 31, 1998No. 109646, Calendar No. 7Published
1DissentWeaver, J.
I dissent from the majority’s interpretation of MCL 221.20; MSA 9.21, the highway-by-user statute. I believe the majority’s interpretation sanctions the unconstitutional taking of private property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and art 10, § 2 of the Michigan Constitution. The majority’s interpretation also violates appellees’ Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process.
The majority relies on Bumpus v Miller, 4 Mich 159 (1856), to support its holding that the highway-by-user statute authorizes taking more property than has…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- United States v. LockeSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.